Probabilities of causation are proven to be critical in modern decision-making. This paper deals with the problem of estimating the probabilities of causation when treatment and effect are not binary. Pearl defined the binary probabilities of causation, such as the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS), the probability of sufficiency (PS), and the probability of necessity (PN). Tian and Pearl then derived sharp bounds for these probabilities of causation using experimental and observational data. In this paper, we define and provide theoretical bounds for all types of probabilities of causation with multivalued treatments and effects. We further discuss examples where our bounds guide practical decisions and use simulation studies to evaluate how informative the bounds are for various data combinations.

The unit selection problem aims to identify a set of individuals who are most likely to exhibit a desired mode of behavior or to evaluate the percentage of such individuals in a given population, for example, selecting individuals who would respond one way if encouraged and a different way if not encouraged. Using a combination of experimental and observational data, Li and Pearl solved the binary unit selection problem (binary treatment and effect) by deriving tight bounds on the "benefit function," which is the payoff/cost associated with selecting an individual with given characteristics. This paper extends the benefit function to the general form such that the treatment and effect are not restricted to binary. We then propose an algorithm to test the identifiability of the nonbinary benefit function and an algorithm to compute the bounds of the nonbinary benefit function using experimental and observational data.

Probabilities of causation play a crucial role in modern decision-making. Pearl defined three binary probabilities of causation, the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS), the probability of sufficiency (PS), and the probability of necessity (PN). These probabilities were then bounded by Tian and Pearl using a combination of experimental and observational data. However, observational data are not always available in practice; in such a case, Tian and Pearl’s Theorem provided valid but less effective bounds using pure experimental data. In this paper, we discuss the conditions that observational data are worth considering to improve the quality of the bounds. More specifically, we defined the expected improvement of the bounds by assuming the observational distributions are uniformly distributed on their feasible interval. We further applied the proposed theorems to the unit selection problem defined by Li and Pearl.

The unit selection problem aims to identify a set of individuals who are most likely to exhibit a desired mode of behavior, for example, selecting individuals who would respond one way if encouraged and a different way if not encouraged. Using a combination of experimental and observational data, Li and Pearl derived tight bounds on the "benefit function" - the payoff/cost associated with selecting an individual with given characteristics. This paper shows that these bounds can be narrowed significantly (enough to change decisions) when structural information is available in the form of a causal model. We address the problem of estimating the benefit function using observational and experimental data when specific graphical criteria are assumed to hold.

This paper addresses the problem of estimating causal effects when adjustment variables in the back-door or front-door criterion are partially observed. For such scenarios, we derive bounds on the causal effects by solving two non-linear optimization problems, and demonstrate that the bounds are sufficient. Using this optimization method, we propose a framework for dimensionality reduction that allows one to trade bias for estimation power, and demonstrate its performance using simulation studies.

The problem of individualization is crucial in almost every field of science. Identifying causes of specific observed events is likewise essential for accurate decision making as well as explanation. However, such tasks invoke counterfactual relationships, and are therefore indeterminable from population data. For example, the probability of benefiting from a treatment concerns an individual having a favorable outcome if treated and an unfavorable outcome if untreated; it cannot be estimated from experimental data, even when conditioned on fine-grained features, because we cannot test both possibilities for an individual. Tian and Pearl provided bounds on this and other probabilities of causation using a combination of experimental and observational data. Those bounds, though tight, can be narrowed significantly when structural information is available in the form of a causal model. This added information may provide the power to solve central problems, such as explainable AI, legal responsibility, and personalized medicine, all of which demand counterfactual logic. This paper derives, analyzes, and characterizes these new bounds, and illustrates some of their practical applications.

The unit selection problem aims to identify a set of individuals who are most likely to exhibit a desired mode of behavior, which is defined in counterfactual terms. A typical example is that of selecting individuals who would respond one way if encouraged and a different way if not encouraged. Unlike previous works on this problem, which rely on ad-hoc heuristics, we approach this problem formally, using counterfactual logic, to properly capture the nature of the desired behavior. This formalism enables us to derive an informative selection criterion which integrates experimental and observational data. We demonstrate the superiority of this criterion over A/B-test-based approaches.